So by this logic the Federal Government could theoretically confiscate guns and I would not be able to sue them if I didn’t own one to begin with. Likewise, even if I did own one I wouldn’t be able to sue as long as I was financially compensated for the weapon since no financial damage was incurred. What is clearly stated in the Constitution is that the President of the United States must be a natural born citizen. If I am not damaged by a non citizen then becoming president, what other clauses being dismissed am I not damaged by. And if so, what remains of the meaning of having a constitution and living under the rule of law rather than the whim of men?
This "doctrine" seems to say that whatever Congress passes, and the (de facto) President signs, cannot be challenged in the courts, as long as it injures everyone.
Would that be the case if they mutually agreed to abolish elections, freezing the membership of Congress and the occupant of the White House, perhaps with replacements via appointments by the Congress approved by the President) or just postpone them "for the duration" of the "present emergency", whatever that might be?
That would a gross violation of several parts of the Constitution, but it would harm everyone equally, and would be a "political question".
That would certainly leave only the final box.
If you didn’t own a gun, you would most likely to be found without standing to sue as you would not have a specific cause of action related to the deprivation of a liberty interest. It would be the same as suing for the right to burn a flag before you have burned a flag. Nothing has happened so nothing can be affirmed or corected by the court.
If you were a gun owner, you would most certainly have a cause of action because the government would be confiscating specific property of yours and depriving you of a specific right in the Constitution.
You are losing a specific unique gun. Obama being president is not depriving you of a specific unique interest.